But Weiner did not ask Pelosi to include in her bill the Kucinich Amendment to allow states to create single-payer. Pelosi made clear that President Obama opposes that, and used the bogus excuse that providing everyone with comprehensive free healthcare would deprive them of the right to pay ever increasing rates for uncertain health “insurance.”

The removal of the Weiner vote undoubtedly helps the effort to force some of the 57 congress members who wrote to Pelosi in July keep their word. They said they would not support a bill without a public option tied to Medicare rates. If even 40 of them keep their word, the current bill will fail. And we will have a second round, in which we can push for single-payer and achieve at least a better result than the rotten corpse of a bill being voted on this weekend.

If we could have had a second round AND a strong but failing vote for national single-payer, that would have been better. But the single-payer vote was going to be used as cover for voting for a bad bill. Depriving conniving congress critters of that cover is decidedly a good thing, assuming healthcare advocates can come to terms with it and not rip each other’s throats out.

If congress members in favor of real helthcare reform were able to work with each other, or if activists were, other possibilities would open up. And if we have a round 2 in which advocates for a public option admit that single-payer would be better and include single-payer in all of their discussions as the ideal that Americans actually prefer, wonderful things might become possible. But unless single-payer advocates admit that winning in one state would be a good thing, rather than a loss of purity, we may not save any lives. Our most likely path to national single-payer is to get it in a state first.

And we could still facilitate that if we all got together and forced the conference committe to put the Kucinich Amendment back in, or if we forced House members to insist on voting No on Saturday unless the Kucinich Amendment is put back in.

*****

UPDATE: Congressman Henry Waxman has his own twisted logic:

Chairman Waxman’s Statement on Rep. Weiner’s Single-Payer Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC — Today Chairman Henry A. Waxman released the following statement in response to Rep. Anthony Weiner’s decision not to offer a single-payer amendment to the House Democratic health care legislation:

“Rep. Anthony Weiner has been one of the most tireless and effective advocates for health care reform. His decision not to offer his amendment on the floor was a difficult one for him, and for supporters of the measure. I believe Rep. Weiner’s choice will be enormously helpful in passing the health care reform package. His step is a correct and courageous one. I thank Rep. Weiner for it, and look forward to working with him closely. Rep. Weiner deserves a great deal of credit for helping to make quality, affordable health care more available to millions of Americans.”

And it appears that reapproval may be about to happen – evidently with a green light from the Obama Administration and over strong objections from human rights and civil liberties groups.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the USA Patriot Act Extension Act of 2009. The bill makes only minor changes to the original Patriot Act and was further watered down by amendments adopted during the Committee’s deliberations.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee had the opportunity to pass legislation to rein in a bill that has become a symbol of out-of-control government invasions of your privacy. They failed — approving a bill that does little to curtail the sweeping powers embedded in the Patriot Act,” said the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Committee’s actions were driven by “short-term and political considerations,” Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told us. The Committee ignored “the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach,” he said.

Now, civil libertarians are looking to the House of Representatives, where the Judiciary Committee has already begun to consider the measure. Both chambers must produce versions of the legislation, after which differences will be reconciled by a bicameral conference committee.

The three sections of the law due to expire next month are:

The “National Security Letter (NSL)” provision. The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people. Government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these secret record demands go out each year. In response to an ACLU lawsuit (Doe v. Holder), the Second Circuit Court of Appeal struck down as unconstitutional the part of the NSL law that gives the FBI the power to prohibit NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested customer Internet records.

The “Material Support” Statute. This provision criminalizes providing “material support” to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since September 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations. Federal courts have struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases have been dismissed or ended in mistrial.

The FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendments Act of 2008. Last summer, Congress amended the law to permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents’ international telephone calls and e-mails.

Now the civil liberties community is stepping up lobbying efforts to ensure that the legislation that emerges from the House Judiciary Committee contains more protections for privacy and other civil liberties.  Such legislation has been introduced in the House by three powerful Congressmen: John Conyers of Michigan, Jerrold Nadler of New York, and Robert Scott of Virginia.

Their proposed amendments Act would create more civil liberties protections for many of the Patriot Act powers, including restricting the gag order attached to receiving a subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL), terminating the never-used “lone wolf” surveillance power, and limiting the use of NSLs to collect information on suspected terrorists or spies instead of innocent Americans.

However, the proposed new legislation leaves intact the Patriot Act’s so-called “material support” provision, permitting prosecution of those who work with or for charities that give humanitarian aid in good faith to war-torn countries.

The actions of the Senate committee have left human rights advocates and many legal scholars perplexed because the Committee chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democratic of Vermont, is considered one of the most liberal members of the Senate, and its members include such other high-profile progressives as Al Franken of Minnesota, Russ D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Chuck Schumer of New York, Dick J. Durbin of Illinois, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Asked to explain their votes, Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee said “the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms – while publicly stating receptiveness to them — was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor.”

He also cited the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others, noting that  Leahy said that in light of these incidents, “this is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America.”

Zazi has been charged with conspiring to bomb targets in the U.S. He allegedly traveled last year to Pakistan, where the FBI charges that he attended terrorist training camps.

“In sum, short-term and political considerations driven by dramatic events once again dramatically affected the need for a more sensible long-term, reasoned, rule-of-law approach, ” Pitts told us, adding, “In the eight years since passage of the original Patriot Act, it’s become clear that the escalating political competition to appear tough on terror (and avoid being accused of being ‘soft on terror’) brings perceived electoral benefits with few costs, with vital but fragile civil liberties being easily sacrificed.

“Even nominal and sometimes actual civil liberties advocates have become more used to the ‘new normal’, seemingly forgetting the less visible but vital benefits of the liberties themselves – including for genuine and effective security, let alone for successful, prosperous, creative, dynamic open societies as opposed to closed societies like the former East Germany that used such approaches to their detriment.”

“The persistent myths and claims that the Patriot Act hasn’t been abused are simply ludicrous after the documentation by (civil liberties groups), regarding the torrent of abuse that has happened since 9/11,” Pitts told us.

Prior to the Judiciary Committee markups, the ACLU and other civil liberties groups had endorsed the JUSTICE Act, an alternative bill that would heavily reform not only the Patriot Act but other overly broad surveillance laws.

Amendments that were offered but failed by voice vote included an amendment by Senator Durbin to curb the abuse of the National Security Letter (NSL) statute and another offered by Senator Feingold to allow the “lone wolf” provision to expire (this never-used provision targets individuals who are not connected to terrorist groups). An amendment also failed that would make it more difficult for recipients to challenge the gag order that comes with receiving an NSL.

However, two amendments offered Senator Feingold were included in the final bill. In one, the Department of Justice would be ordered to discard any illegally obtained information received in response to an NSL. In the second, the government would have to notify suspects of “sneak and peek” searches within seven days instead of the 30 days currently required by the statute. “Sneak and peek” searches allow the government to search a home without notifying the resident immediately.

Source: Wikipedia

This story was reported by ProPublica’s Olga Pierce

Four years ago, a group of lawmakers and aides crafted Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for seniors that has produced billions of dollars of profits for pharmaceutical companies.

Today, at least 25 of those key players are back, but this time they’re lobbyists, trying to persuade their former colleagues to protect the lucrative system during the health care reform negotiations.

The role of big players like Billy Tauzin — the former Republican representative from Louisiana who is now president of PhRMA, the drug industry’s lobbying group — has been long understood. But a ProPublica analysis shows that the drug industry’s position is also being promoted by other foot soldiers from the Part D legislative process, from committee aides to top Bush administration officials.

The most prominent members of this group include:

• Tauzin, former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who was instrumental in ensuring Part D’s passage. As PhRMA’s president he reportedly earns [8] more than 10 times what he was paid as a member of Congress
• Former Sen. John Breaux, D-La., who fought against allowing drug prices to be negotiated in Medicare Part D. A year after the bill passed, he left the Senate to begin his lobbying career. He now has his own lobbying firm, Breaux Lott Leadership Group, which this year has received $300,000 to lobby for the pharmaceutical industry.
• Former Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., who helped negotiate the final version of Part D, then left to form his own lobbying firm. Bristol Myers-Squibb paid the Nickles Group $120,000 this year to lobby for, among other things, “health care reform issues related to Medicaid and Medicare.”
• Thomas Scully, the former Medicare chief who helped design Part D. Scully obtained a waiver [9] allowing him to discuss job offers before he left his government post. Less than two weeks after the bill passed, he went to work for the lobbying firm Alston & Bird, where he works on behalf of drug companies.

Less familiar names also made the leap to lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry.

• Raissa Downs was once a top legislative aide in the Department of Health and Human Services, where she helped spearhead the agency’s efforts to shape Part D. Now she’s a partner at Tarplin, Downs & Young consulting firm, where she is lobbying against changes to Part D.
• Michelle Easton has gone through the revolving door several times, working for Breaux, then the industry, then for Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is a key player in the current reform debate. Now Easton works in Downs’ firm.
• John McManus, who was staff director of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee when Part D was created, now has his own lobbying firm. Between 2004 and June 2009 the McManus Group earned about $6 million lobbying for PhRMA and various drug companies.
• one of this is illegal as long as the former officials abide by a cooling off period —two years for senators and their staff, one year for representatives and their staff, as well as for senior agency staffers — before they personally lobby the Hill. In the interim they are free to accept jobs with lobbying firms and offer advice about strategy, tactics and the intricacies of the law.

“This is a phenomenon that is prevalent throughout Congress,” said Dave Levinthal, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group in Washington that tracks lobbying activity. “They’re in Congress, out of Congress – then back lobbying their former colleagues.”

One former Congressional staffer who now works for the pharmaceutical industry refused to be quoted by name but said he sees nothing wrong with a revolving door between the public and private sectors.

“Every time a major bill passes, there is an exodus of Hill staffers,” the former staffer said in an e-mail to CBS News, which worked with ProPublica on this story. “In many cases, they have worked for 2-3 years on the legislation and then they go to work for firms with a stake in the implementation. These staffers, obviously, have a unique understanding of the issue and people are willing to pay a premium for that knowledge – even more so than for their so-called ‘connections.’”

Creating Part D

To understand how the pharmaceutical industry is helping to shape the nation’s health care policies, it helps to understand how the industry’s interests prevailed when Part D was created in 2003.

As ideas for the prescription drug benefit were being debated, several proposals were introduced that would have allowed the government to negotiate for lower drug prices, as it does for the drugs it buys for Medicaid and for the Veterans Administration.

But after intense lobbying by pharmaceutical companies, and strong-arm tactics by House leaders, the final bill instead specifically barred the government from negotiating lower drug prices. It also banned importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and gave drug companies stronger protections against their generic competitors.

Congressional leaders pulled no punches in making sure the bill passed. In violation of House rules, members were given less than 24 hours to read the 850-page document, and the final vote was called about 3 a.m.

Instead of closing the vote 15 minutes after voting began, as required by House rules, leaders kept the vote open for almost three hours, the longest roll call vote in the history of the House of Representatives, while they worked the floor.

In 2006, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called that night “the worst abuse of the legislative process I have seen during my 20 years in Congress.”

Indiana Republican Rep. Dan Burton also recalls the night as being ugly. “The votes were there to defeat the bill for two hours and 45 minutes and we had leaders going around and gathering around individuals, trying to twist their arms to get them to change their votes,” Burton told CBS’s 60 Minutes in 2007.

Today, the prices the government pays for drugs through Part D are about 30 percent higher on average than the prices it pays for drugs for Medicaid recipients, according to a 2008 report [1] by the House Committee on Oversight. Another study by an economist at the University of Maryland also found a significant price difference.

Preserving Part D

Now the pharmaceutical industry is fighting for its bottom line again.

Its lobbyists are working against the House version of the health care reform bill, which would require drug companies to give up some of the windfall they gained as low-income seniors were transferred from Medicaid to Medicare during the Part D launch. Unlike Part D, Medicaid has strict rules to make sure it gets the lowest possible drug prices.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates [2] such a requirement would save taxpayers $63 billion over the next 10 years. In the House bill, that money would be used to close the Part D “doughnut hole,” a nearly $3,500 gap in coverage plans that leaves seniors responsible for the full cost of their drugs.

The industry is also fighting a similar but more stringent proposal in the Senate – advocated by two Democratic Senators, Bill Nelson of Florida and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia – that would save taxpayers more than $100 billion over the next 10 years, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office.

Instead, the pharmaceutical industry supports the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee, which apparently reflects an agreement [3] negotiated between committee chairman Baucus, the White House and Tauzin, the former senator turned lobbyist.

Under that agreement, PhRMA would give seniors a discount on drugs they purchase while in the doughnut hole, a concession worth about $30 billion over the next 10 years. But in exchange two of the industry’s biggest legislative worries – any attempt to recover its windfall profits when seniors were moved from Medicaid to Medicare, and the legalization of re-importing cheaper drugs from Canada – would be off the table.

The two bills must still pass their respective houses of Congress. Then they will collide in conference committee negotiations before final vote or whatever.

Calling on former government workers

The skills of government workers turned lobbyists are invaluable to the pharmaceutical industry during these negotiations.

John McManus, for instance, is described on his firm’s Web site as the “chief staff architect” of Part D, who “led the policy development, drafting and negotiations with interest groups” associated with the bill. That claim is based on his years as staff director for the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, including during the original Part D debate.

Before McManus went to work for the committee, he was a senior associate at pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co. from 1993 to 1997. After he left the government, he founded the McManus Group, a lobbying firm that specializes in health matters. His latest lobbying disclosure indicates he is lobbying in “opposition to Medicare rebates” in the “House Tri-Committee health reform draft.”

Michelle Easton’s career took even more twists and turns.

She started her Hill career in Breaux’s office as legislative director and staff director for the Senate Special Committee on Aging. According to her biography, she “worked extensively on the Medicare and Medicaid programs while working in the Congress, including instrumental work on the Medicare Modernization Act,” the bill that established Part D.

In February 2005, Easton left to become a vice president at PhRMA, where her job was maximizing enrollment as Part D was rolled out. Less than a year later, she returned to the public sector as chief health counsel to Baucus, who opposed price negotiations during the original Part D debate and is now the lead sponsor of the bill that PhRMA supports.

Last year Easton joined Tarplin, Downs & Young, which specializes in health lobbying. So far in 2009, she has lobbied on behalf of Amgen, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Boston Scientific, Genzyme, Vertex Pharma, Wyeth, AstraZeneca and PhRMA, according to disclosures filed with the House of Representatives.

One disclosure says her work for PhRMA involves “Medicare and Medicaid drug reimbursement, Medicaid rebate.” On behalf of drug maker AstraZeneca she is advocating “Medicare Part D non-interference.”

To advance the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda, lobbyists meet with their former colleagues, attend hearings —and also funnel campaign donations.

Just over a week after moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski voted against a version of health care reform being considered by the Senate health committee, Easton’s colleague, lobbyist Downs, co-hosted a $1,000-a-person fundraising breakfast for Murkowski at Charlie Palmer Steak.

The Capitol Hill restaurant, where Washington’s elite can choose from a breakfast menu that includes quail eggs and fig risotto, is a world away from the Department of Health and Human Services, the dowdy concrete fortress where Downs once spearheaded the agency’s efforts to shape Part D.

Downs’ former boss Thomas Scully — the former Medicare chief who is now senior counsel at Alston & Bird — was the only person mentioned in this article who agreed to be quoted by name. He said he sees nothing wrong with such lobbying efforts.

He also said he has no regrets about his role in getting Part D passed or about his career change. He’s listed in the firm’s disclosures as a lobbyist for drug maker CSL Behring on the topic of the “Medicaid rebate,” but said he isn’t lobbying much for industry these days.

“So much of this is politics,” Scully said. “People took lots of shots at me while I was in government, but it was people trying to get a political gain for five minutes.”

As for the other staffers who are now lobbying, he said, “Generally the people who understand these programs the best are the ones who have been working on them.

“They’re all good people,” he added. If they are lobbying, “they have every right to do it.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, circulated a letter Thursday to show depth of support for public option among Senate Democrats.

Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.

The letter, which was circulated by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), was signed by Brown; John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).

“Support for the public option runs deep in the Senate,” Brown said. “Health insurance reform is all about lowering costs, improving care, and increasing choice for consumers. In too many parts of the country, one or two insurance companies control the majority of the market. This isn’t good for consumers, businesses, or taxpayers. As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn’t forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option.”

The Senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.”

It continues on to state that “the number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.”

Brown is a leading advocate of the public option. Along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), he helped write the public option language in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee-passed health reform bill. In April, Brown circulated a letter signed by 21 senators calling for a strong public health insurance option to be included in health reform efforts. In May, he introduced a resolution sponsored by 28 senators calling for a public option.

Here’s a copy of the letter senators sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

October 8, 2009

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader

United States Senate

The Capitol, S-221

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform – the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats – every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.

The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance – rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee’s approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) John D. Rockefeller (D-WV)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) Tom Udall (D-NM)

Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY) Roland W. Burris (D-IL)

Ron Wyden (D-OR) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Jack Reed (D-RI) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Al Franken (D-MN) Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE) Arlen Specter (D-PA)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Bernard Sanders (I-VT) John F. Kerry (D-MA)

Herb Kohl (D-WI) Paul Kirk (D-MA)

Nadler said the Republican initiative, the Defund ACORN Act, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, singles out a specific organization by name for exclusion from participating in any federal program, in direct violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder. The amendment was attached to a student loan bill.

“Today’s Republican amendment is in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder,” said Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial, and that’s what this amendment does. Whatever one may think of an organization, the Constitution’s clear ban on Bills of Attainder is there for the protection of all of our liberties.”

The Supreme Court, in decisions dating back to the Civil War era, has held that the Constitution prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial….”

Nadler said during the McCarthy era, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting the use of funds to pay the salaries of three federal employees who Congress deemed subversive. The Supreme Court ruled this legislation unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder.

Nadler added that the amendment, in addition to being clearly unconstitutional, sets a dangerous precedent of Congress punishing politically disfavored groups without any due process.

Last week, the Census Bureau announced that it was cutting ties with the organization, which had been enlisted to assist with the 2010 census count.

On Monday, the Senate voted 83- 7 in favor of an amendment that blocks ACORN from receiving transportation and housing funds. That measure was introduced by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-NE. Johanns introduced a second amendment Thursday, this time to cut off any funding ACORN may receive from the Department of the Interior. The measure passed 85-11 and received a “yea” vote from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, accused Republicans of orchestrating a political stunt. She said ACORN does not receive Interior Department funds and the introduction of the amendment was “unnecessary.”

The bills that the Senate and House amendments are attached to need to be signed into law by President Obama before it can take effect. The language in the amendments can still be changed or stripped from the final version of the bills.

ACORN’s most recent troubles began last week after videotapes surfaced showing employees advising conservative activists who posed as a pimp and a prostitute ways in which they could break the law. The group sponsors voter registration drives and helps low-income people secure housing. ACORN has offices in 110 cities and employs more than 700 people and says it has 400,00 families listed as members.

In a statement released Wednesday in response to videos that showed the two conservative activists, who posed as a prostitute and her pimp, being advised by ACORN employees on ways in which they could purchase a house and fill out tax forms, ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis said the organization would suspend its efforts to attract new clients while an internal investigation is being conducted.

As a result of the indefensible action of a handful of our employees, I am, in consultation with ACORN’s Executive Committee, immediately ordering a halt to any new intakes into ACORN’s service programs until completion of an independent review. I have also communicated with ACORN’s independent Advisory Council, and they will assist ACORN in naming an independent auditor and investigator to conduct a thorough review of all of the organizations relevant systems and processes. That reviewer, to be named within 48 hours, will make recommendations directly to me and to the full ACORN Board. We enter this process with a commitment that all recommendations will be implemented.

Lewis added that the move to strip ACORN of federal funding was part of a “multiyear political assault stemming variously from the Bush White House, Fox News and other conservative quarters.”

ACORN fired the employees who appeared in the videos. Still, California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called on state Attorney General Jerry Brown to launch an investigation into the group’s activities. The employees in some of the videos were based San Bernardino.

In a floor statement after the House voted 345-75, which included the support of 172 Democrats, to cut off federal funds to the group, Nadler spoke out against the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little while ago, the House passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that says no contract or federal funds may ever go to ACORN, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with ACORN. Unfortunately, this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the Constitution, constituting a Bill of Attainder. The Constitution says that Congress shall never pass a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder, no matter what their form, apply either to a named individual or to easily ascertainable members of a group, to inflict punishment. That’s exactly what this amendment does.

It may be that ACORN is guilty of various infractions, and, if so, it ought to be vetted, or maybe sanctioned, by the appropriate administrative agency or by the judiciary. Congress must not be in the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial.

That’s what this Amendment did. It is flatly prohibited by the Constitution, and once we ignore the Constitution we ignore constitutional principles. Whatever one may think of the subject matter or the organization, the Constitution and the ban on Bills of Attainder are there for the protection of all of our liberties. It is unfortunate that we passed this, and I hope it is removed in the conference committee.

In a statement after the vote, Boehner said, “today’s overwhelming bipartisan vote to stop all federal funding of ACORN is a victory for American taxpayers. Of course, it is only the beginning. We need to keep up the fight to end taxpayer funding for this troubled organization.”

He added:

House Republicans have worked tirelessly to sever ACORN’s ties to the federal government. Those efforts began to bear fruit late last week when the Census Bureau ended its relationship with ACORN under steady pressure from Republican lawmakers. Though today’s vote indicates that the writing’s on the wall for ACORN, President Obama must indicate whether he will join the Congress in taking decisive action to break all government ties with this corrupt organization.

But Republicans vowed to take their crusade against the organization even further with Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, calling for a Justice Department probe.

ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization. All federal ties should be severed with ACORN, and the FBI should investigate its activity. This united Republican effort to defund ACORN is a victory for the rule of law and taxpayers across the country.

Sen. John Cornyn, and 26 other Senate Republicans sent a letter Thursday to Reid demanding that he hold public hearing.

“As the organization’s laundry list of fraudulent activity and abuse of taxpayer dollars continues to grow, it is time to crack open ACORN and expose once and for all the organization’s full record of offenses,” Cornyn said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that she supports those efforts.

“A few people have embarrassed ACORN. We have to have our own investigation,” she said, adding that the employees caught on tape allegedly giving illegal advice is “unacceptable.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, in response to a question by ABC News’ Jake Tapper, that the “conduct.. on those tapes is completely unacceptable. I think everyone would agree with that. The administration takes accountability extremely seriously.”

ACORN has been a target of Republican lawmakers and operatives for nearly a decade over false claims of voter registration fraud.

At the height of hotly contested elections in 2002, 2004, and 2006, the Justice Department issued a directive to every U.S. attorney in the country to find and prosecute cases of voter fraud even though evidence of such abuses was extremely thin or non-existent, according to a former federal prosecutor.

David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney for New Mexico, recalled receiving an email in late summer 2002 from the Department of Justice suggesting “in no uncertain terms” that US attorneys should immediately begin working with local and state election officials “to offer whatever assistance we could in investigating and prosecuting voter fraud cases,” Iglesias wrote in his memoir, In Justice: Inside the Scandal that Rocked the Bush Administration.

Iglesias was fired in 2006 after he refused to prosecute what turned out to be unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud leveled against ACORN.

Last year, during the height of the presidential campaign ACORN once again became a target of Republican attacks over claims the organization was involved in a nationwide voter registration fraud scheme.

Trying to salvage his campaign last year, John McCain declared ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

In his book, Iglesias recounted how the Department of Justice aggressively pushed him and other US attorneys to prosecute voter fraud cases, an issue the former US attorney says the DOJ became unusually obsessed with.

“The e-mail imperatives came again in 2004 and 2006, by which time I had learned that far from being standard operating procedure for the Justice Department, the emphasis on voter irregularities was unique to the Bush administration,” Iglesias wrote.

Iglesias said that Republican officials in his state were far less interested in election reforms and more intent on suppressing votes.

“But there was a more sinister reading to such urgent calls for reform, not to mention the Justice Department’s strident insistence on harvesting a bumper crop of voter fraud prosecutions.”

“Not only did the [Bush] administration stoop to such seamy expedients to press its agenda in 2004,” Iglesias wrote. “It had the full might and authority of the federal government and its prosecutorial powers to accomplish its ends.”

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., debuts on a watchdog group's list of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released its annual “Most Corrupt Members of Congress” list, a detailed analysis of the unethical and sometimes illegal activities of 15 congressmen and women who have most egregiously betrayed the public’s trust.

CREW also has launched the report’s tandem website, www.CREWsMostCorrupt.org, which offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions as well as the full-length profiles and all accompanying exhibits.

New to this year’s list are Senators Roland Burris and John Ensign, and Representatives Nathan Deal, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Pete Visclosky.

According to CREW, Jackson’s dealings with disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich cemented his inclusion on the list:

On December 9, 2008, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested by federal agents for what was described at the time as a “political corruption crime spree.” One of the central allegations against the governor was that he attempted to sell an appointment to the Senate seat vacated by then President-elect Obama.

In the affidavit supporting the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich, the governor is quoted stating he believed a particular candidate, later identified as Rep. Jackson, would “raise money” for him and that “he might get some [money] upfront.” The governor also claimed an “emissary” from Rep. Jackson came to him and offered to raise a total of $1.5 million for his campaign should Rep. Jackson indeed be appointed to the vacant Senate seat. In fact, the day before the governor’s arrest, Rep. Jackson met with him to discuss the vacancy.

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) launched a “preliminary review of Rep. Jackson’s actions surrounding his bid for appointment to the Senate seat.” OCE asked Gov. Blagojevich’s former staffers and campaign aides to turn over correspondence between Rep. Jackson and the governor. Additionally, the Department of Justice has interviewed Rep. Jackson and subpoenaed individuals with knowledge of Rep. Jackson’s alleged effort to raise funds for Gov. Blagojevich. If Rep. Jackson offered then-Gov. Blagojevich anything of value, including campaign contributions, in exchange for an appointment to the vacant U.S. Senate seat, Rep. Jackson may have violated Illinois bribery law.

Rep. Jackson has denied any wrongdoing and says he is cooperating with both investigations. In the first half of 2009, his campaign committee paid $18,697 in legal fees in addition to $100,000 paid in December 2008.

Sen. Burris’ dealings with Blagojevich also lead to his inclusion on the corrupt lawmakers list. In the case of Sen. Ensign, CREW said:

On June 16, 2009, Senator John Ensign announced he had engaged in an extramarital affair with an unnamed former campaign staffer from December 2007 until August 2008. The staffer was later identified as Cynthia Hampton, whose husband Doug Hampton, was a close friend and top aide to the senator.

In a letter to FOX News anchor Megyn Kelly, Mr. Hampton stated that although the two families had been “lifelong friends,” Sen. Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with Mr. Hampton’s wife. He said Sen. Ensign’s “conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April 2008.” Mr. Hampton further stated that because of Sen. Ensign’s conduct, Mr. Hampton’s family “lost significant income, suffered indescribable pain and emotional suffering. We find ourselves today with an overwhelming loss of relationships, career opportunities and hope for recovery.”

Cynthia Hampton was paid $1,885 a month, working for both Sen. Ensign’s campaign and his leadership political action committee, Battle Born PAC. In January 2008, a month after their affair began, Ms. Hampton’s salary doubled after she took on increased responsibilities with the re-election committee and took over as treasurer for the PAC. An individual close to Sen. Ensign’s family said that after the senator confessed the affair to his wife, reconciled with her and attended counseling, he fired Ms. Hampton, providing her with a severance payment paid from his own pocket.

Both Doug and Cynthia Hampton received payments from Sen. Ensign after leaving his employ. After his departure, Mr. Hampton received $6,000, an amount Sen. Ensign’s office claimed was “equal to 12 days of unused vacation,” and was not a severance package, an understanding confirmed by Mr. Hampton.

On July 8, 2009, Mr. Hampton said Sen. Ensign had personally paid Ms. Hampton over $25,000 in severance. Sen. Ensign’s attorney, Paul Coggins, quickly contradicted that claim, stating Sen. Ensign’s parents paid Ms. Hampton and her family $96,000 after they had learned of the affair. Mr. Coggins insisted the payments were not made from campaign or official funds, nor were they related to any campaign or official duties. Rather, he explained, the April 2008 payments were “gifts made out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time.” Each of Sen. Ensign’s parents made out four checks in the amount of $12,000 to Cynthia Hampton, her husband and two of their children. Sen. Ensign’s office claimed the alleged $25,000 severance payment was part of his parents’ $96,000 “gift.”

Additionally, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Sen. Ensign chaired, paid the Hamptons’ 19-year-old son $1,000 a month from March through August 2008 for his work as an intern.

Sen. Ensign originally indicated he went public because he was being extorted. He later admitted, however, that he went public because he had learned Mr. Hampton had written to FOX News with details of the affair, asking the network to investigate the matter and downgraded the alleged extortion to a legal demand.

If, as it appears, Mr. and Ms. Hampton were discharged directly because of Ms. Hampton’s affair with the senator, Sen. Ensign may have engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Senate Rules. Additionally, the payments to the Hamptons may have been an unreported, illegal, excessive in-kind contribution to Ensign for Senate and Battle Born PAC in violation of campaign finance law.

After a two year absence, Rep. Maxine Waters has reappeared in the study for unethical activities unrelated to the conduct that landed her on the list in the past. A detailed list of those who have previously graced the report can be found on the website.

Of this year’s list of 15, at least 12 are under investigation: Reps. Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, Alan Mollohan, John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Don Young are under Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, while Sens. Roland Burris and John Ensign and Reps. Charles Rangel and Laura Richardson are under congressional ethics committee investigations. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is under investigation by both the DOJ and the Office of Congressional Ethics and Rep. Vern Buchanan is being investigated by the Federal Election Commission.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today, “With the economy in a free-fall, unemployment rates at record highs and health care solutions still nowhere in sight, members should be spending their time looking for answers to the nation’s problems, not finding new ways to enrich themselves.”

Sloan continued, “The members of Congress profiled in CREW’s Most Corrupt report have betrayed those who voted them into office. This report holds them accountable for their bad choices.”

The 15 most corrupt members of Congress are:
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL)
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

Click here to visit CREWsMostCorrupt.org.

Editor’s note: This story was previously headlined, “Democrats Dominate Watchdog Group’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress List.” TPR reader Woody pointed out in the comments that the use of  the word”dominate” was a bit strong considering that Democrats outnumber Republicans by just one. We agree with Woody and have changed our headline to simply reflect the fact that the list was released.

Letters were sent to Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Medica, and Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield.

“I began looking into the practices of the health insurance industry in the last Congress and was deeply disturbed by what we uncovered,” said Chairman Waxman. “As part of our ongoing investigation, we are now looking into the practice of health insurance companies terminating the coverage of small businesses when their employees become ill and their health insurance claims increase. We need to better understand how widespread this harmful and destructive practice has become, and how it is impacting small businesses and their employees across the country.”

“As we continue our investigation into business practices in the health insurance industry, the treatment of small businesses remains a concern,” said Chairman Stupak. “We have documented examples of insurance companies raising small business premiums by an unsustainable amount or canceling a policy once it is discovered a covered employee is sick. Much like rescissions in the individual market, this practice is alarming. To better understand how prevalent this practice is and precisely how many small businesses are impacted, we are asking some of the largest insurers to provide information on their small business policies.”

The committee is requesting information and documents for small group policies, including their renewal rates, factors used to determine premium rates, and the maximum premium rate increases.

As Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Waxman launched an investigation into the practices of the health insurance industry in 2008. That probe was carried over to the Energy and Commerce Committee this year.

Feinstein’s comments were made in response to a report published in the New York Times Wednesday stating that in 2004 the CIA outsourced the assassination program, aimed at targeting al-Qaeda leaders, to security firm Blackwater, now known as Xe, a company whose former chief executive was recently accused of murder. To date, Blackwater has received more than $1.2 billion in government contracts.

She said despite assertions by Republican lawmakers and CIA officials that the program was never operational, it had, “in fact gone beyond the simple planning stage.”

A report published in the Los Angeles Times Thursday said the CIA “delivered a report to Congress earlier this month after conducting an internal probe of the program, which was first launched after the Sept. 11 attacks but was canceled and restarted several times under different regimes at the agency.”

She said it was now “clear” to her that the “failure to notify” Congress about the program, which lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees first learned about in June during a closed-door meeting with CIA Director Leon Panetta, “constituted a violation of law.”

Feinstein is the first lawmaker to state unequivocally that the CIA broke the law by failing to inform Congress about the covert program, which was concealed from Congress for nearly eight years.

While Feinstein would not comment on the specific revelations contained in the New York Times report, she said she has “believed for a long time that the Intelligence Community is over-reliant on contractors to carry out its work. This is especially a problem when contractors are used to carry out activities that are inherently governmental.”

“The program was never briefed to the Congress before June despite a clear requirement in law to keep the intelligence committees ‘fully and currently informed,’” she said.

“That’s a big problem and it should never ever happen again,” Feinstein said. “Every single intelligence operation and covert action must be briefed to the Congress. If they are not, that is a violation of the law.”

News reports said Panetta told the Intelligence Committee that Vice President Dick Cheney advised the agency not to disclose details of the program to Congress.

Feinstein, whose committee is currently conducting an investigation of the CIA’s interrogation program to determine whether the torture of high-level detainees produced any actionable intelligence, added that her panel has included a provision in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Bill that “clearly states that there is no exception to the legal requirement to notify Congress.”

In July, the House Intelligence Committee launched an investigation to determine if the CIA violated federal law, “including the National Security Act of 1947″ by withholding details of the program from Congress.

Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes said the probe would be part of a wide-ranging investigation about the way in which the CIA informs Congress about its covert activities and other matters.

Blackwater was reportedly paid millions of dollars to train CIA operatives to assassinate and kill leaders of al-Qaeda, according to reports late Wednesday in the New York Times and Washington Post.

According to the Los Angeles Times report, the CIA “did not have a formal contract with Blackwater in connection with the targeted-killing program. Instead, the agency hired the company’s founder, Erik D. Prince, a former Navy SEAL team member, and other Blackwater executives to help turn an idea for forming Al Qaeda hit squads into an operational program.”

“The effort ranged from consulting with top executives to carrying out training exercises at Blackwater’s headquarters in North Carolina. Company officials did not respond to requests for comment.”

Blackwater has long been the target of Democratic lawmakers over its controversial security and business practices.

Wrongfully Awarded Contracts

In July 2008, the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration (SBA) released a report that said Blackwater misrepresented the size of its firm so it could receive more than $100 million in small business contracts from the federal government.

The report said the mercenary outfit obtained a total of 39 contracts intended for small businesses with annual revenues of $6.5 million between 2005 and 2007. But the report said Blackwater’s revenue surpassed $200 million for those years.

Blackwater “obtained a total of 33 contracts during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007, totaling $2,188,620, which may have involved misrepresentations to obtain the contract.”

The report also found that “it is possible that misrepresentations took place” on the remaining six contracts, totaling $107,311,356.”

Of the 39 contracts reviewed, 38 were awarded by the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded one. The Inspector General’s report says the small business contracts “could have involved potential misrepresentations by Blackwater.

Moreover, the Department of Defense wrongfully awarded Blackwater aviation contracts worth $107 million. That contract was earmarked for companies with annual revenues of less than $25 million or less than 1,500 employees, the report said.

The report was prepared at the request of Congressman Henry Waxman, who at the time was the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Waxman sent a letter in March 2008 to Steven Preseton, the administrator of the Small Business Administration.

“As part of the Oversight Committee’s investigation into the business practices of Blackwater Worldwide, the Committee has obtained evidence indicating that Blackwater may have applied for and received federal contracts by improperly claiming that it was eligible for small business preferences,” Waxman’s March 10, 2008 letter said. “It appears Blackwater sought these small business contracts by improperly designating its security guards as “independent contractors” rather than “employees.”

The Inspector General’s 27-page report released Monday said Blackwater appeared to have improperly classified its guards stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as independent contracts as opposed to full-fledged employees in order to obtain government contracts.

According to a memo issued by Waxman to Oversight Committee members Monday, “The key issue… was whether personnel hired by Blackwater to provide security services for the Department of State (DOS) and other agencies were Blackwater employees . . . or independent contractors.”

“In claiming it was a small business, Blackwater argued that 1,000 security personnel it provided under the State Department’s $1.2 billion Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) contract were independent contractors,” Waxman’s memo says. “The [Small Business Administration Inspector General] reports that Blackwater claimed that it “had little or no knowledge of the activities of the security personnel performing the contract and exercised little or no supervision over these personnel once they were deployed.”

The report “concludes that these assertions were incorrect,” Waxman’s memo says.

The Inspector General’s report says “Our review of the WPPS Statement of Work indicates that it contained a number of provisions that appeared to be inconsistent with SBA’s conclusion that Blackwater did not have knowledge about the actions of the personnel once they were deployed.”

Target of Controversy

Last December, five Blackwater security guards were indicted on manslaughter charges over the massacre of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. The Iraq government also stripped the company of its security license. The publicity reached such negative proportions that Blackwater sought to reinvent itself under a new name: Xe.

Recently, a Blackwater employee and a former ex-Marine employed by the company in a security capacity said in a sworn affidavit filed Aug. 3 in a federal court in Virginia, that company CEO Erik Prince may have murdered or assisted in the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities investigation the company.

The explosive allegations, which also include claims the company was involved in the distribution of controlled substances, tax evasion, child prostitution, were made in a civil lawsuit filed against Blackwater that charges the company with Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations.

The company was also under federal investigation and was expected to be slapped with nearly $2 million in fines last Novemeber by the State Department for shipping about 900 weapons to law enforcement facilities in Iraq and Jordan without authorization. The weapons, however, ended up on the black market. It’s unclear whether the company was in fact fined or faced other charges. There does not appear to be additional information available about the weapons smuggling case beyond the reports of expected fines.

Congressional Investigation

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers continue to downplay new reports about the CIA’S assassination program and criticized Panetta’s decision to end the program.

Sen. Pete Hoekstra, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, accused Feinstein and other Democrats of engaging in “partisan, political theater” for launching a probe to determine if the CIA broke the law by not informing Congress about the program.

I reported earlier Wednesday about Karl Rove’s mysterious reference to an Alabama lawyer named McDonald and wondered if it provided any clues regarding the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

A source said the reference probably was to Alabama businessman and University of Alabama Board of Trustees member Sidney L. McDonald. But a second source says the reference probably was to Mobile lawyer Matthew C. McDonald.

Several published sources have connected Matthew McDonald to Rove, so it appears Matthew is the “mystery McDonald,” not Sid.

Source No. 2 says Matthew McDonald might be related to Sid McDonald, possibly a nephew. And like Sid, Matthew has solid ties to the University of Alabama. He earned his law degree there and served on the editorial board for the Alabama Law Review.

Matthew McDonald perhaps is best known for his role in the tort-reform movement. He is held in high regard by the Foundation for Fair Civil Justice, which deemed him a “legal reform champion” and stated:

(Matt) has been especially active in the southeastern United States, both as general counsel of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, and as the widely recognized principal proponent of lawsuit reform laws passed in 1987 and 1999 in a region notorious for massive damage awards.

Matt also worked closely on the successful Alabama Supreme Court races from 1994 through 2002 that saw the election of fair and balanced justices to that court.

That last paragraph says a lot about McDonald’s connections to Rove. Those connections were made clear in a 2007 New York Times article:

An associate of Mr. Rove’s in the state, Matthew C. McDonald, a Mobile lawyer, said Mr. Rove had maintained at least a passing interest in Alabama affairs. The interest dated back to his pivotal role as a political consultant here in the 1990s, when he helped shift the state’s supreme court to the Republicans. Mr. Rove opened an office in Montgomery, and would fly in and out regularly.

Our earlier post was off base about Rove’s testimony and its possible connections to the University of Alabama. This latest information perhaps says something important about Rove’s mindset during his testimony.

Rove appears to have long-standing ties to Matthew McDonald, but “Bush’s Brain” could not recall his Alabama colleague’s first name, or whether he lived in Mobile or Birmingham? Does that say something about Rove’s level of candor throughout his Congressional testimony?

And here is the important point: Rove himself has identified Bill Canary, Kelley McCullough Robertson, and Matthew McDonald as three key contacts in Alabama. If a real investigation ensues, will it include an examination of the phone and e-mail communications of those three folks–along with others in Alabama who probably stayed in touch with Rove?

Do Canary, Robertson, and McDonald have information that will unlock the truth behind the Don Siegelman case–and the abuse of our Department of Justice during the Bush administration?

Below is Mr. Shuler’s report published earlier Wednesday.

One of the most curious moments in Karl Rove’s recent testimony about the Don Siegelman case came when the former Bush White House adviser was asked about his primary contacts in Alabama.

Rove mentioned two familiar names–William Canary, head of the Business Council of Alabama, and Kelley McCullough Robertson, former Southeast political director for the Republican National Committee and state director for Karl Rove & Co.

Almost as an afterthought, Rove threw out a third name–a “lawyer” named McDonald. Strangely, Rove could not seem to remember the person’s first name or hometown.

Which raises this question: Who in the heck is this McDonald person?

A source with strong knowledge of Alabama politics tells Legal Schnauzer that Rove probably was referring to Sidney L. McDonald, a prominent businessman from Town Grove, Alabama, and founder of DeltaCom Long Distance Services, the largest Alabama-owned telecommunications company.

McDonald has served in both the Alabama House of Representatives and the Alabama Senate and was one of the first members of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education (ACHE).

Perhaps of most interest here at Legal Schnauzer is this: McDonald has served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees since 1992. That’s the outfit that oversees the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). It’s also the outfit that almost certainly either pushed for, or approved of, my unlawful termination in May 2008.

McDonald now is an emeritus member of the board. But he was president pro tempore when the board hired current UAB president Carol Garrison in 2002. Garrison, of course, was in charge at UAB when I was unlawfully terminated and also has seen a lengthy string of human-resources problems surface on her watch.

Interestingly, Garrison was hired in the aftermath of a major HR headache–the forced resignation of previous UAB president W. Ann Reynolds, who wound up suing the Board of Trustees for age and gender discrimination. McDonald said at the time that discrimination played no role in Reynolds’ ouster. But Reynolds wound up receiving a nifty $475,000 settlement for her troubles.

One other note: McDonald also played a major role in the hiring of Malcolm Portera, the current chancellor of the University of Alabama System. Portera just happens to be a proud member of the Business Council of Alabama’s board of directors, which is run by Karl Rove’s close friend and ally, Bill Canary.

Our source notes that McDonald is not a lawyer, but he is close to the Alabama Republican Party and almost certainly is the person to whom Rove was referring.

If our source is correct, let’s consider what that might mean for our Legal Schnauzer story:

* A trusted source for Karl Rove serves on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees;

* Said source hired a chancellor who now serves on Bill Canary’s business-council board;

* Said source was president of the board when it hired Carol Garrison as UAB president;

* Your humble correspondent, a 19-year UAB employee at the time, happened to be writing a blog critical of the Bush Justice Department (on my own time), which we now know was hugely and corruptly influenced by Karl Rove;

* Carol Garrison, a virtual lapdog for Karl Rove’s trusted Alabama source, OKed my unlawful termination.

So Karl Rove’s Congressional testimony raises a number of questions that hit awfully close to home:

* Is the University of Alabama Board of Trustees essentially run by a bunch of Rove-influenced right wingers?

* Did Karl Rove’s apparent ties to Sid McDonald have something to do with my unlawful termination?

* If Karl Rove is found to have corruptly influenced the Don Siegelman prosecution, did a member (or members) of the University of Alabama Board of Trustees play a role in it?

* Will Congressional investigators present followup questions to Rove in order to determine the exact identify of this “McDonald” individual?

* If it is Sid McDonald, will investigators check his phone and e-mail records to see what communication he might have had with Rove regarding the Siegelman case and other matters? Could Sid McDonald be called to testify before government investigators?

* Would such an investigation reveal a right-wing conspiracy that runs throughout the University of Alabama System?

* Exactly how much influence do Karl Rove and Bill Canary have on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees?

As you can see, these questions are serious–they are not amusing in the least. But reading the testimony where Rove let the McDonald name slip is downright comical. It’s almost as if “Bush’s Brain” got bored or lazy or both and inadvertently tossed out a name that wasn’t supposed to be revealed. Then Rove immediately began to back track, suddenly unable to remember McDonald’s name, hometown, gender . . . you name it.

Here is the “McDonald” segment of Rove’s testimony:

Q Now you referred a few moments ago to contacts through friends and associates in Alabama, who would those be?

A Well, the person who ran my firm in 2000, Kelley McCullough, now Kelley McCullough Robertson, who came to Washington. She did not live in Alabama, but kept in touch in Alabama politics, and a lawyer in Birmingham — or in Mobile, named McDonald, you know, friends. I might have talked to Bill Canary, who is the president of Alabama Business Association, but I can’t recall.

Elliot Mincberg, counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, let the McDonald reference slide right on by. Maybe it’s time somebody checks into it.

Roger Shuler resides in Birmingham, Alabama. A 1978 graduate of the University of Missouri, Shuler worked 11 years as a reporter and editor for the Birmingham Post-Herald before working 19 years in several editorial positions at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). He blogs at Legal Schnauzer.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released more than 700 pages of on-the-record interview transcripts of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers related to their roles in the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys and the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department of Justice.

During the course of his interview with the committee, Rove was asked about contacts he had with Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for governor of the state.

Specifically, Rove was asked whether he or anyone at in the Office of Political Affairs had any communications with Christie or his office after he started as U.S. Attorney.

Rove responded:

I talked to him twice in the last couple of years, perhaps one time while I was at the White House and once or twice since I left the White House, but – not regarding his duties as U.S. Attorney, but regarding his interest in running for Governor, and he asked me questions about who – who were good people that knew about running for Governor that he could talk to.

The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from running for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office. Employees are barred from any action that can reasonably be construed as evidence an individual is seeking support for or undertaking an initial campaign to secure a nomination or election to office. Prohibited activities include canvassing or soliciting support as well as meeting with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of a campaign.

Rove’s statements demonstrate that while Christie was the U.S. Attorney, he met with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of a campaign and to seek support in his efforts to secure the Republican nomination for governor in violation of the Hatch Act. The Merit Systems Protection Board has held the OSC retains jurisdiction over such matters even whereas here, the employee has left the federal government.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated

The Hatch Act is intended to ensure federal employees do their jobs without regard to partisan politics. Christie’s actions call into question whether the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office investigated and prosecuted cases based on application of the law to the facts, or because certain prosecutions might have enhanced his prospects of securing the Republican nomination for governor.

Last week, Gov. Jon Corzine said the revelations contained in Rove’s interview transcripts about his conversations with Christie leaves no doubt that his opponent is a “lawbreaker.”

“It is hard to understand how a lawbreaker gets the reputations of being the king of law enforcement, and uses that as a platform,” Corzine said, adding that he too believed Christie’s conversation with Rove appeared to be a Hatch Act violation.